I think if we look at imposing a critera on exposure we are opening up a huge nightmare for the admins, a lot of people no doubt just use the auto mode on their camera's, some just us a point and shoot camera and the computer onboard the camera might not produce a image that is not like the conditions at the time of the shot. If the has a bit of focus issues but it is still clear especially scanned, low resolution images but the ship details can be made out, whats wrong with leaving it? Obviously if a image is so clearly unsharp and blury that is different, but some of use adjust our shutter speeds and exposure for various reasons and i think to impose conditions on that is crazy when only the person who took the shot knows what the condition were like at the time

As far as old photos that are scanned don't forget what this site is about, Shipspotting, not ship photography.

Dave G

Old photos are also of ships that were once spotted...I would oppose a rule that would state that photos have to uploaded within a certain (any) amount of time after they were taken.

Correct exposure for me is that I can adjust the picture to the exposure and lighting levels that I fancy. I hardly come across images that I cannot work with, even the vague Vancouver B&W shots become jewels when you work on them a little. So I am in favour of deleting the word : "correct" in the standards.

Digital camera noise can be reduced by several programmes too, so I am not too worried about low quality images on those terms. As far as sharpnes is concerned, the distance between a photographer and a ship is seldom small enough to have problems with depth of field, so even the largest aperture will not result in the rear part of a ship becoming unsharp, but it could still be considered to introduce a rule that requires that all parts of the ship have more or less the same level of sharpness.

Photos, slides and negatives do deteriorate over time if not keep correctly,some of mine going back to the 1960s and in colour, my point was that they may not be up to the latest quality of digital images but are of interest to some members.

Definition should be clearly understood, and even more it is necessary to be clearly judged on a methodical manner (not only on basis of an individual judgement as up till today).I propose to be implemented a scale of sharpness quality:1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10"1" = outstanding bad quality"5" = average quality"10" = excellent/outstanding good qualityShould be accepted photos of sharpness quality "6" or better.

It happens quite often that an Admin deletes a photo of sharpness quality "7" or "8" (sometime even "9" in extreme cases !?? ) to our much great surprise and our even greater disapproval of such a decision & action.Such an unjustified Admin's judgement, based on only an individual judgement and personal angle of opinion at that very moment, should not happen in any case (maybe an Admin doesn't have a "good day" that day !??).

Should be also well considered by the site Administration that this is not a Professional site with the highest/best professional products, but it is a Hobby site with amateur products which should be of reasonable good quality.

In conclusion:Sharpness quality of at least "6" is to be acceptable !Regards /Jadran

PSIf an Admin considers a photo for deletion with remark "Not sharp" he should obligatory, clearly & fully state e.g. Not sharp - sharpness quality 4

Well, some considerations about the fit screen - full screen - original size matter.

This is a big problem for me. As Im sure that you all noticed, in almost all my uploaded shots I remarked at the description box : " Better quality at Full screen "...

Why ? Its Shipspotting software the one that choose wich its the size to be enlarged automatically. ?

When I upload a real cristal clear sharp shot, lets say for example, at just 1300 pix width, you have 5 different view sizes I think:

small, at the front page when you just upload.small, at the sub pages.medium, when you just click on the small one and get the view page whith the shot info.Fit screen when you are loged and can open the shot to full screen-fit screen ( your shot or in this case my shot, fit complete, not cropped, between the monitor left and right side )

This full screeen-fit screen its the one better for the size of my shots, but then if you click on ORIGINAL size, everything goes bananas ( totally out of focus, the shot multiply the sixe 2, 3 or close to 4 times, and of course out of focus ) and the viewers can think of a POS quality shot.

An observation: There are two full screen versions: "fit screen" (the opening default) and "original size". In some cases the original is smaller than full screen, so it is the site software that can add apparent lack of focus. For those, perhaps it is the original size should be considered. In other cases, the full screen can look fine, but the original size might be considered "too large" for it's content (yet often invaluable for identitying mystery vessels, for example).

The question of the shipspotting software in relation to displaying photos will have to be answered by Henrik our site manager and software maintainer.I must admit I am not aware of anyone on the admin team with the knowledge to answer Ventuari's questions

There is already some tolerance for older images that are scanned, this does not need to change in my opinion.

We must be sensible, the advances of digital photography are impossible to reproduce except from transparencies of exceptional quality.

Older images are very much admired on the site by a lot of the members.

best regards

Derek

Older images are indeed most interesting. But if these were not taken by the actual member who posts them on Shipspotting (of course with the proper copy right) it is my opinion that they should be in a separate category.

There are the icon, small and middle size images on the site that are converted automatically.

The "original size" is as the uploader added it. It's kept by us to both give the most detailed image, but also to be able to generate new thumbnails (if needed).

When uploading, many photographers don't consider resizing, sharpening, contrast, saturation and similar filters which should be used to make a good photos.

The "fit screen" obviously does not look the same as it's hugely depending on screen size.

A 1300 pixels photo should look good in original size on most regular screen sizes of today. Can look bad in full screen if the screen resolution is larger in pixel size - like 1920+, 3840 or more... and if it's on a 40+ inch monitor/projector etc.

In my opinion the full-screen and original size it's so many factors affecting the image quality.

The middle size images (most commonly viewed) is 800 pixels in width (always shrinked from at least 1024px, which increases sharpness), and if that one is looking bad - for sure all the other larger versions will look a lot worse and likely completely unacceptable.

There are the icon, small and middle size images on the site that are converted automatically.

The "original size" is as the uploader added it. It's kept by us to both give the most detailed image, but also to be able to generate new thumbnails (if needed).

When uploading, many photographers don't consider resizing, sharpening, contrast, saturation and similar filters which should be used to make a good photos.

The "fit screen" obviously does not look the same as it's hugely depending on screen size.

A 1300 pixels photo should look good in original size on most regular screen sizes of today. Can look bad in full screen if the screen resolution is larger in pixel size - like 1920+, 3840 or more... and if it's on a 40+ inch monitor/projector etc.

In my opinion the full-screen and original size it's so many factors affecting the image quality.

The middle size images (most commonly viewed) is 800 pixels in width (always shrinked from at least 1024px, which increases sharpness), and if that one is looking bad - for sure all the other larger versions will look a lot worse and likely completely unacceptable.